Ibsen and Fatherhood* Jørgen Lorentzen hroughout Henrik Ibsen’s dramatic works, fatherhood and issues related to fatherhood occupy a central position. In his Thistorical and romantic dramas, as well as in his contemporary dramas, Ibsen writes about fathers, the role of fathers in relation to their children, and how adult men are impacted by their relationship to their fathers. I can hardly think of a more pervasive motif in Ibsen’s works than fatherhood. However, fatherhood is not what most of us associate with Ibsen’s dramas. Most of us think of women who fight for the right to a life of freedom or heroic men who become embroiled in great moral battles related to truth, freedom, power, suppression, and bourgeois double standards of morality. The reason for this is rather obvious. Ibsen’s dramas do not explicitly deal with fatherhood. It is not the relationship between fathers and their children that comprise the dramatic plot. Fatherhood lies in the background, ahead of the drama and underlying the dramatic interactions and scenes. Fatherhood is pervasive, yet kept discreetly in the background. This makes it even more fascinating to study. What is it that leads Ibsen to dramatize so consistently the relationship between father and child without fully developing it as a theme? In what ways are issues of fatherhood part of the realistic discourse on truth, freedom, and other issues under discussion? How and to what degree does he allow fatherhood to play a role in his dramatic works, and how does this play out in relation to motherhood, family, and masculinity, both within and beyond Ibsen’s works? In this article, I will try to show that it is no coincidence that father- hood is a kind of axis in his dramas. I also want to point out that Ibsen’s dramatizations of fatherhood are part of a contemporary social debate in which fathers and paternal authority are subjected to a sweeping critique. The spotlight is placed on the father, both on and off stage, and he must explain himself. The role of the father is no longer taken for granted. * Thanks to my colleagues Christian Janss, Kirsten Kalleberg, and Kristin Ørjasæter for their helpful comments during the writing of this article. New Literary History, 2007, 37: 817–836 818 new literary history Of course, I am not the first to comment on fatherhood in Ibsen’s dramas, but I am surprised by how few critics and analysts have addressed issues related to fatherhood in Ibsen’s dramas, including the fathers’ sometimes unethical and ruthless behavior toward their children. Except for a few articles over the years, I have found just a few references that discuss fatherhood in Ibsen’s works.1 These articles address this topic as a minor element in analyses dealing with and discussing other aspects of the dramas. The commentaries on Ibsen both in Norway and abroad are so numerous, however, that I will not attempt to refer to all of these. I will mention two books, though, that take a broader perspective on issues related to fatherhood. In his book Questioning the Father (1999), Ross Shideler analyzes several of Ibsen’s dramas from a post-Darwinist perspective.2 Shideler examines Ibsen in relation to a number of other important European authors of the time who replace a religious pater- familias structure with a biocentric and conflicted bourgeois family, in which the father’s power is unstable and insecure. Shideler shows how these authors are part of both a post-Darwinist and a feminist discourse on the family, patriarchal power, women’s fight for a new freedom, and conflicting reactions toward the democratization of the family. In the chapter on Ibsen, Shideler discusses Pillars of Society (1877), A Doll’s House (1879), and Ghosts (1881), three dramas in which fatherhood occupies a central position. In Shideler’s interpretation, these plays are an expression of the struggle between the patriarch-oriented men and the biocentric-oriented women who argue in favor of a new social order through references to a new knowledge-base founded on human freedom and equality. Consequently, in these three dramas, Ibsen emerges as one of the most important advocates for the improved status of women in the second half of the 1800s. In the newly released book Skolens gjenganger (The School’s Ghosts), Anne Marie Rekdal also chooses fatherhood as one of the main perspec- tives in her commentaries on Ghosts and The Wild Duck.3 As the book has an explicitly pedagogical purpose aimed at the discussion on Ibsen in high schools, it emphasizes a presentation of different perspectives on and possible readings of the various Ibsen dramas. Nonetheless, the book offers new approaches to and understandings of the individual dramas. In the analysis of Ghosts, Rekdal focuses on the fathers and their absence from the family drama, and, in The Wild Duck, she presents the two father-son relationships—Werle-Gregers and Ekdal-Hjalmar—as mir- ror images, in which the two sons have different crosses to bear due to their fathers’ misdeeds. There are several reasons that Ghosts and The Wild Duck in particular invoke this perspective on fatherhood, but one obvious reason is that these two dramas are the most clearly family-oriented of Ibsen’s dramas.4 ibsen and fatherhood 819 Subtitled A Domestic Tragedy in Three Acts, Ghosts is the only one of Ibsen’s dramas with a subtitle such as this, while The Wild Duck is associated with an often quoted notation by Ibsen on the play’s thematic structure. “Gregers’ knowledge of children’s first and deepest sorrows. They are not sorrows of unrequited love; no, they are family sorrows—painful home circumstances—” (6: 434). In a letter to publisher Frederick Hegel, Ibsen addresses this same topic as he is about to finish writing the play: “This play does not concern itself with political or social questions or with public matters in general. The action takes place entirely in the area of family life.”5 Quite simply, Ibsen wanted to explore the dramatic workings of the family in both these dramas, specifically the relationship between mother, father, and child—not just between the woman and man or the relationship between the adults. The children occupy a deliberate and central place in both plays, with an emphasis on how children are wounded to their core in the bourgeois family drama. However, many critics have taken Ibsen’s use of the term “family” too literally. It is not so much the family as such that is reflected in Ibsen’s two dramas, but rather fathers and fatherhood in particular. In these two dramas, the word “father” is used far more often than in any other works by Ibsen, and the role of the father is importunate in both works. Even though the mother is without a doubt the protagonist on stage in Ghosts, it is her relationship to society’s father figures that lies at the heart of her despair and ultimate self-knowledge. To talk about the family as such can easily conceal the fact that it is fatherhood being examined in these two plays. In some respects, Ghosts is a precursor to The Wild Duck. These family dramas are tied together not only because they are Ibsen’s two explicitly family-oriented dramas, but also because Ghosts establishes the precondi- tions for issues related to fatherhood in The Wild Duck. Ghosts represents Ibsen’s first fundamental critique of the patriarchal family.Brand (1866), Pillars of Society, and A Doll’s House problematize the father’s role. Brand sacrifices his son, Alf, out of pure romantic idealism, while Bernick is willing to sacrifice his son, Olaf, for his own personal and financial in- terests. But in both these works, the possibility is left open for the men to make restitution by the end of the plays. In A Doll’s House, the father and mother build a patriarchal home of illusion for the children, but when Nora has had enough and leaves, the father remains with both children—a conclusion that makes possible a new and different kind of fatherhood. First in Ghosts, the patriarchy is stripped of all its dignity. This is pointed out by both Rekdal and Shideler. Rekdal writes: “Mrs. Alving’s radical rebellion and fight for freedom in Ghosts is directed toward all types of ghosts, toward all types of defunct opinions and beliefs, but first and foremost toward those fathers who are bearers of the patriarchal social order” (SG 122). 820 new literary history One of the most important preconditions for laying bare the symbolic power of the patriarchy is the disclosure of the father as a representative of the divine within the family. The father’s position in the family as the extended arm of God was strengthened by the Protestant church. The father had an obligation to represent both the Christian patriarchal view of life and, to a certain extent, to help carry out the church’s duties re- lated to evangelizing and establishing the faith within the family. Through Pastor Manders’s role in Ghosts and the relationship established between Pastor Manders and the “diabolical” carpenter Engstrand, the church’s natural authority becomes disengaged, and the church’s unequivocal fight for the old family order becomes clear. The church is shown as integrally involved in the maintenance of the traditional patriarchal authority and a part of the established phallic order. Engstrand provides the most elegant presentation of the church’s position when he states in a conversation with Regine at the beginning of the play: ENGSTRAND. All right, I’m going.